Bayhpartisan Foreign Policy

When is enough enough?

2006-08-03T07:48:00.000-07:00

More killing in Israel and Lebanon this morning. The question on my mind is when will Bush's hand finally be forced. I have a feeling that if this were Clinton, he'd already be trying to bring the sides together to stop the violence.

Instead, we've got Mr. Bring it On sitting back and letting the violence escalate. Remember when the rhetoric of "You're with us or with the terrorists" was so popular in the wake of 9/11? Well, we're finding out today that such a simplistic, black and white view just doesn't work in conducting foreign policy. America deserves a president who is able to see the different shades of gray.

The Democrats need to hop on this issue in November. We need to remind people that it's been on the GOP's watch that the Middle East has been pushed to the brink of all-out war. The neocons, who taunted the Democrats as weak on defense, have made us much less secure. This type of opportunity for a realignment in American politics comes once every thirty or so years. It may be a while before the Dems have the chance to take back the foreign policy debate again.

Lamont opens up lead on Lieberman

2006-08-03T07:41:00.000-07:00

A double digit lead? I don't think anyone saw this coming when Lamont was polling in single digits a few months ago. So unless Connecticut gets a rousing jolt of Joementum in the next five days, we're looking at a three-way general election. Energizing the base - will it sweep Lamont into office or merely turn off moderate supporters? It should be fun to watch this November.

The Un-Hillary?

2006-07-11T07:57:00.000-07:00

CNN.com has a video on their front page describing Evan Bayh as the "un-Hillary" for 2008. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for more info on the '08 race (it's under the politics tab). But while the media is trying to cast the 2008 primary as Hillary vs. a TBD anti-Hillary, Senator Bayh doesn't see the race in the same light.

When asked by a participant at this weekend's Camp Bayh what separated him from Hillary Clinton, Bayh chose to focus on his own vision for America (http://www.indystar.com/...). "It's really about what you're for, where you want to lead, what you stand for, what you hope to do," he said.

This comment sets the tone for the type of campaign Bayh intends to run - one focused on where he will lead America, not on what is wrong with his opponents. It's clear that Americans have been yearning for a candidate like this, after decades of having sound bites and negative ads jammed down their throats every four years. So what kind of campaign would Evan Bayh run in 2008?

Bayh would point to his success balancing the budget, improving education, and lowering taxes as the Governor of Indiana. He can also reassure the proverbial security moms with his (by 2008) ten years of foreign policy experience in the Senate. He's the ideal general election candidate - progressive in action and moderate in tone. Additionally, the guy knows how to campaign in red states, having won five consecutive elections in the Republican stronghold of Indiana.

Democrats will take the next 18 months to pick George Bush's successor, and they would be wise to take a close look at Indiana's junior senator.

(Cross-posted at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/11/105131/383)

2006-06-17T11:01:00.000-07:00

Taking Back Defense
Well, in case we needed any further proof that the GOP is weak on national security, we got it this week. With North Korea's announcement this week that they plan to test a missile capable of reaching mainland America (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13361343/) the full view of Bush's foreign policy failure is coming into view. For the sake of this country, we need a change in government, starting this November, and culminating in 2008.

I remember the first time I started doubting Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy was January 29, 2002. The State of the Union speech given that night is remembered primarily for the reference to an "Axis of Evil" that existed among the nations of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. At the time I thought, "Hmmmm, Iran's been moderating in recent years, North Korea's been pretty quiet, and Iraq's been pretty boxed in by Clinton." Iran and North Korea had even flown their flags at the UN at half-staff in solidarity with the US following 9/11. Inflammatory rhetoric didn't seem the best way to get concessions from these states. As the saying goes, "Don't kick a sleeping dog."

Look where we are today. We turned the one state where no imminent threat existed into a haven for terrorists like Zarqawi. We've inspired Iran and North Korea to restart their weapons programs, because they know the US has never attacked a nuclear-armed state. And I don't think anyone needs reminding about what Bush has done to our reputation from London to Timbuktu, and everywhere in between. 50 years from now, the Bush Administration will be known to students of history for its colossal misjudgment of foreign policy.

We need a change in 2008. Democrats need to take back the debate on defense and foreign policy, in the way that Republicans seized it after Vietnam. If we win this struggle, we will see a new Democratic majority emerge.

2006-06-13T20:59:00.000-07:00

The Des Moines Register ran a poll this week which had some unexpected results(http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/NEWS09/606110338/1001&lead=1). In case you missed it, Hillary Clinton came in second to John Edwards in a poll of Iowa Democrats, further weakening her aura of inevitability. It's clear that Hillary has already attained the status that doomed Dean in 2004. The media has labeled her too polarizing to win a general election, and Democrats are having serious doubts as a result. Democrats just want to win in 2008, and Hillary is too much of a gamble to make them happy. The question, then, is who will emerge as the consensus anti-Hillary?

Looking at the poll reveals that you can split the candidates into three groups. The second graph shows that, at least among Iowa voters, the candidates are either very well known, fairly well known, or relatively anonymous to Democrats. Edwards, Clinton, Kerry, and Vilsack comprise the first group, Clark and Daschle the second, and Bayh and Warner the third.

Vilsack's polling is by far the most telling. Even in his own state, where his name recognition is very high, 90% of Iowa Democrats know they don't want Vilsack as the nominee. This removes any notion of a "home-field advantage" if he decides to run. Similarly, Kerry's numbers betray a weak future candidacy. Despite winning the nomination and receiving almost 40% of the vote in the 2004 caucus, Kerry is barely polling above single digits. Although he'll probably run, there's little hope for Kerry to improve his standing.

There's no doubt that this poll is at least temporary good news for Edwards. He hasn't been raising a whole lot of money for himself, and the poll may temporarily shore up his fundraising ability. Yet, Edwards should be the de facto nominee, having run for vice-president on an unsuccessful ticket. He's got the name recognition, and people seem to like him, but he's polling at a level lower than the support he got in 2004. The expectations will be high given Edwards' history in Iowa, and there's a lot of pressure for him to live up to them.

Feingold, who will likely run to the left of everyone, has attained a fairly significant level of name recognition, but is polling at 3%. Daschle and Clark face the same problem - even with moderate levels of name recognition, they're not polling at any level of noticeable support. It seems doubtful that any of these candidates will be able to mount a significant challenge with the numbers they're currently showing.

That leaves the two unknown commodities - Warner and Bayh. Each offers the Democrats support in a region they're not normally successful. They have virtually identical support, name recognition, and favorability levels. If anything, Bayh has a slight edge in the favorability department. That seems to be the case the more Bayh campaigns in Iowa; everywhere he goes people leave liking the guy, even if they're not ready to totally support him.

So where does this leave us? Well, the race is clearly much more wide open than many thought. Hillary is hardly a lock for the nomination, and this may be a test of whether she's up for a bloody primary fight. If I had to list my own "heavyweights" in this race, I would have to say Edwards, Hillary, Warner, and Bayh each have a shot of locking up the nomination - as the race stands today.

Given their levels of support and success in fundraising, I would put Edwards at 4, Hillary at 3, Warner at 2, and Bayh as the most likely. I think that given Kerry/Edwards' lack of success on foreign policy, Bayh's credentials as an executive and legislator will appeal to a lot of Democrats. Bayh has the potential to come out of nowhere, like Clinton in '92 and Carter in '76, to capture the nomination and take back the White House.

2006-05-22T22:44:00.000-07:00

Here's something cool...MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12304248/) has ranked the potential 2008 candidates according to their strengths and weaknesses. Using boxing terminology, MSNBC rates Sen. Bayh as a "Heavyweight," putting him in the same tier as Hillary, Gore, and Kerry. Seeing as we've had a Clinton, Bush, or Gore on every ticket since 1980, it's not hard to see which candidate will be seen as a breath of fresh air. MSNBC credits Bayh because, "He is frank in arguing that the party must win the election on national security and not avoid the issue -- that voters would never trust Democrats to take care of education and other matters 'if they don't first trust us with their lives.' " Check it out, some interesting analysis, even though we're still a year and a half out.

Reclaiming the National Security Debate

2006-05-20T20:03:00.000-07:00

Since the cessation of hostilities in the Vietnam War, no issue has more sharply divided our two political parties than how to approach foreign policy. In the words of Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party was "scarred" by the war into a more isolationist role. Subsequently, while voters have been willing to trust Democrats with almost all other responsibilities - the economy, environment, and welfare come to mind - they have rejected Democrats on the issue of national security. While this worked fine for the Democratic Party in the 1990s, it has proved fatal to its efforts to reclaim any branch of government in the 21st century. Until voters trust us with their lives, it is argued, they won't trust us with anything else.

As the old saying goes, there's no time like the present. The Democratic Party has a tremendous opportunity to reclaim the national security, and create a new majority. The Bush Administration has opened the Republican Party to valid charges of weakness on defense. They have underfunded our troops, turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, and failed to incapacitate al Qaeda. A Democratic Party that is willing to use our military because we need to, but not because we want to, can win an electoral majority in 2006, 2008, and beyond. However, it is crucial that we offer a valid alternative, and not merely rely on the ability of the GOP to shoot themselves in the foot.

The one candidate offering the Democratic Party a chance to reclaim the national security debate is Senator Evan Bayh. Bayh's years in the Senate make him more qualified than any other Democrat on the topic of national security. He offers a clear and different foreign policy that is both smart and tough. Bayh has expressed support for using the NSA to monitor terrorist communications, while at the same time protecting our civil liberties. He has made it clear he would use the military to counter the Iranian threat, if necessary, but it would not be his first choice of action. As the Democratic Party reviews its options for 2008, no issue should weigh heavier than national security.